Editorial – Is all the nonsense coming out of the EU actually designed to make Britain walk away?

Juncker,Tusk, Barnier and Verhofstadt. are getting more and more ridiculous in their demands as part of the Brexit negotiations.

It seems that far from wanting to achieve a settlement over a trade deal when Britain leaves, they seem to be placing every impediment to progress.

Despite originally refusing May’s offer to have a reciprocal arrangement concerning both British and EU ‘ex-pats’ before negotiations started, they now make trade talks conditional only on the issue being settled and having to agree to pay a large ‘divorce bill’.

The demands have become more and more outrageous.  From an original starting point of 50 Billion Euros, the amount being demanded by the EU now appears to be closer to 100 Billion Euros.  Although May appears to be wavering in their demand for a much reduced monetary settlement, it appears unlikely that the EU will accept that.

Barnier is also demanding that the question of the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland be settled, again before any trade negotiations are entered into even though it is unlikely that neither one side nor the other cannot allow free movement of people and goods without some very difficult and protracted compromise.

He is also demanding that the ‘Rights’ of EU ex-pats come under the jurisdiction of the European Court.  This, of course, is quite out of the question as no Country in the World would allow another Court to have jurisdiction alongside their National Law.  There is actually no precedent for such a thing as any other country (apart from Iceland who agreed on their secession because they have few immigrants), quite rightly, would require immigrants to abide by the Law of the host country

Now, there is a demand for a transition period after Brexit to prevent a so-called ‘cliff edge’ for Business, but what this actually means is to extend the 2 year Article 50 period.

The original transition period mooted was that Britain remain under the EU Jurisdiction until 2022 but now that the Government have all but capitulated to that, Barnier is now insisting that the period be extended to 2029; a full 10 years after the official Brexit date and all that time, Britain would not only be paying into the EU, but we would also be prevented from following our own trade deals outside of the EU.

The EU must know that Britain, despite its weak leadership, will not agree to such onerous conditions and if forced, will simply walk away.

According to the latest poll of over 20,000 people, both ‘Leavers’ and ‘Remainers’ by the LSE, It has been found that over 70% of Voters not only want a ‘Hard’ Brexit, they also want it to be over and done with.

Despite there now being only a little over 18 months until Britain leaves the EU, there appears to be little progress in the negotiations.  Of course, that time itself will need to be dramatically reduced because of the up-coming European elections and the need to place any agreement before the EU Parliament.

Even if this were allowed, it would require the unanimous agreement of not only Britain, but all of the other 27 Member States.

Now, it might be considered a ‘slam dunk’ that the other Member States would bite our hands off to keep us paying into the EU coffers but it is by no means certain.

The EU Commission is at loggerheads with most of the ‘Visigrad’ group of the Eastern European States, not to mention some of the Scandinavian States, Austria and Italy over the issue of mass migration who may well use the issue as a bargaining chip in their desire to get what they want.

It is not even just the Member States that will have to decide alone, there is the small matter that some of those States have to constitutionally have the agreement of some of the Regions of their Country.  You may remember the recent matter of Wallonia, one of the Belgian Regions, holding up the signing of a Treaty because they did not agree with the terms given.

Britain must be Punished

There are several EU States that want to see Britain punished for having the temerity to want to leave the EU.  There are also a number that take a more pragmatic stance and recognise that in order to survive as an entity, they must keep Britain onside even when it has left the EU.

Even if by some travesty, Britain agreed to these onerous conditions for the ‘privilege’ of paying the EU for them to have a trading surplus with Britain, there is another seemingly insurmountable problem for the EU and that is the issue of ‘Free Movement’ for which they are Constitutionally bound.  To allow Britain to control its borders would be an anathema to most of the EU Membership.  Not least because if they allowed Britain to have this ‘Privilege’ they would find it extremely difficult to prevent demands from other EU States such as France, Austria and Switzerland for the same facility.

The ‘Visigrad’ countries in particular would be vehemently opposed to such a concession as it is they that benefit most from migration of their population to work in the more prosperous countries of the EU.

It is well known that the EU takes years to agree on anything due to each Member State having its own agenda.  Such a momentous decision in allowing Britain to leave without further payment would take at least two years to accomplish even if it could be achieved.

Britain is in the EU illegally.

As discussed in another article on this website (, Britain’s Membership of the EU is contrary to both International Law and (and an actually written part) of the English Constitution.

The Government in their selfish regard for their own agenda refuse to acknowledge this because to do so would illustrate the travesty of forcing Britain to follow the ‘trap’ that Article 50 was intended to be.  They appear, however, to have inadvertently confirmed this matter by refusing to answer a Freedom of Information Act request for their acknowledgement of the matter and, further, the Information Commissioners Office appears to be in collusion with the Government because, they too, have refused to follow up a complaint.  (

Gerard Batten MEP

Gerard Batten MEP discusses the Constitutional problems that the Constitutional problems that both the EU and Britain have on this matter in his excellent ebook; ‘The Road to Freedom’ (download from Amazon: £0.99).

He also describes the break up of the old Soviet Union.  The USSR also had an ‘Article 50’: Article 72 of the Soviet Constitution which was designed to be a similar trap as Article 50 to make it extremely difficult for any Soviet State to secede from the Soviet Union which followed an almost identical procedure except that the Soviet States period was for 5 years rather than the EU’s 2 years.

Within 2 years, all 15 former Soviet States had left the Soviet Union and not a single one followed the procedures laid out in Article 72 but, instead, declared their respective Treaties of Accession as ‘Null and void’

This is exactly what Britain should be doing by repealing the European Communities Act:1972.

For Britain to do so would solve all of the legal constitutional problems encountered by both the EU and Britain as neither would then be in abrogation of their respective Constitutions and could then trade amicably to mutual benefit as ‘Third Countries’.

Could the recognition of this be a cunning plan by the EU to avoid such problems by making any possible deal so onerous that Britain will be forced to walk away?  I doubt that the likes of Tusk, Juncker and Verhofstadt have the intellect to devise such a scheme but, I am sure that the Corporations that actually run the EU may have such foresight.

Leave a Reply

Help put the World to rights and leave a Comment

Notify of

I have written to May for what good it will do and asked her if it is the case that Brexit doesn’t actually mean brexit any more, as we can not leave the eu and remain in the customs union. Is she packing her bags for her imminent departure from downing street. Looks like May The Betray has decided to throw yet another spanner in the Brexit mix, before she goes. I pointed out we should walk away and negotiate as an independent nation using the WTO to allow us to explore other avenues. And we must not pay a… Read more »


Excellent survey of the current situation. Also Gerard Batten is one of a very few who has grasped the constitutional and political implications of our membership of this corrupt Soviet style bureaucracy.
Keep up your good work in exposing the weakness of our own political leadership and the deviousness and hostility of our so called “partners” in the EU.
Kind regards
Graham Wood (York)

Powered by: Wordpress
%d bloggers like this: